Saturday, July 29, 2006

Cheating the Millenium: The Mounting Explanatory Debts of Scientific Naturalism

Author: Christopher Michael Langan, Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design; President of the Mega Foundation

For me, this article is the most intellectually rigorous in the Uncommon Dissent collection. It is also the most abstract and philosophically challenging. In summary, the article is an analysis of the nature of causality, the nature of causality within the Neo-Darwinist and Intelligent Design Theory views in particular, and a step toward a true synthesis of those two views.

Langan accuses the scientific establishment, especially evolutionary biology, of passing the explanatory buck when it comes to the nature of causality. Evolution, particularly Darwinism, is built on the premise that events in the natural world are either deterministic or random. When pressed to recurse this chain of causality to the beginning, they are at a loss to explain the creation of the universe using these concepts. Langan proposes self-causation as the most viable alternative.

As he categorically attacks the neo-Darwinist model of causality, step by step, the reader learns a great deal about the presuppositions and presumptions made by the majority of scientists today. By excluding formal and final causes, by an a priori divorce of the abstract and concrete or mind and matter, and by the insistence that everything must have a specifically physical cause, the neo-Darwinists force their profession into conclusions that are neither based on any emprical evidence nor are the best or most complete answers to very important questions.

This article is a mental challenge but that just makes it even more informative and enlightening. Langan seems to be a naturalist, he doesn't seem to need or want to invoke the supernatural in his world view. His arguments are thorough and require hard thinking to digest. This is the toughest and most unique article in this collection.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the Life Sciences in the Twenty-First Century

Author: Ronald F. Hirsch, Office of Biological & Environmental Research in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy

This is one of the most biologically technical articles in the collection. As such, it provides very "scientific" grounds for questioning the validity of Darwinism. The author has divided his arguments and evidence into three categories: Genome Sequences, Proteins, and Microbes/Microbial Communities. In each category, he demonstrates that Darwinism did not, and can not, predict what biology has discovered through new technology and therefore that it fails as a valid theory in this regard. The necessary presumptions about life in order for Darwinism to be true were in fact quite incorrect; life, especially on the sub-cellular level, is so vastly complex that Darwinian mechanisms can simply not account for it by gradual, linear, and random mutations.

In regard to genome sequences, Hirsch discusses 1.) "the major role played by transfer genes from one species to another, as opposed to inheritance from ancestors", also known as lateral or horizontal gene transfer, 2.) "the fact that bacterial species do not evolve solely in a random fashion, but show a bias toward deletion of genetic material", 3.) "the discovery that much of the portions of the genome that do not code for proteins is not 'junk DNA' but in fact has a critical function", and 4.) "the observation that expression of genes is controlled by regulatory circuits that are as complicated and as precisely arranged as the most sophisticated engineering diagrams." He explains how these discoveries, especially when taken together, are neither predicted nor accounted for by Darwinian means.

In regard to proteins, Hirsch discusses the flaws in the mandatory Darwinist notion of "one gene - one protein - one function" and goes on to explain "how an expressed protein is chemically transformed into the actual molecule that participates in cell functioning, how it folds into the shape required for exhibiting its characteristic activity, and how the transformed, folded protein then must become a part of a multi-protein complex that is actually responsible for the function in which that protein participates." He focuses largely on ribosomes and how, even in the simplest cell imaginable, they are necessary. The problem is that they are so complex it is quite impossible for them to have spontaneously generated from non-living matter.

In regard to microbes and microbial communities he discusses how various microbial organisms, like bacteria, often live communally with supposed "competing" other species. He discusses their specialized communal chemical signalling and their mechanisms to resist antibiotics. As in the previous two sections, he adequately explains why Darwinism can neither predict nor account for this.

Certainly Darwinists would protest, they can bend evolution to explain anything and everything and they surely already have. The point is not that Darwinian evolution can not be invoked to explain these things by various ad hoc reasons, but that these were all generated after the fact and only by abandoning past ideas once considered crucial. Why should we trust or even use such a theory? Hirsch refers to Darwinism as a "highly superfluous idea", effectively useless for science.

I was especially interested to see how Hirsch's observations cooperate with Denton's, especially in regard to necessary organization and design found in organisms but not coded for by the genes themselves. Hirsch discusses this, calling it "epigenetic", and applies it to many biochemical functions and activities present within cells. You will have to read his article to find out more.

This is a great article; a bit technical at times but definitely worth the time.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science

Author: Cornelius G. Hunter, Senior Scientist at a high-tech research firm and postdoctoral researcher at University of California at San Diego.

This is the only article that attacks macroevolution in general, rather than simply the Darwinist flavor. Even under these circumstances, the author is more concerned in demonstrating that there is a lack of evidence and reason supporting evolution rather than "disproving" evolution. After all, evolution is so flexible and general a notion that it can be instantiated at will for ad hoc explanations of virtually anything, even completely contradictory and exclusive concepts. It is hardly possible to "disprove" such a theory; but he readily shows that it is perfecly natural to ask what evidence exists for us to consider it a valid theory at all.

He begins his article with a brief, yet thorough enough to make his point, survey of the data used to support evolution and the inconvenient, yet abundant, data that refuses to fit the mold (thereby effectively invalidating confidence in the theory). He then moves on to the crux of his argument: the primary reason for confidence in evolution, rather than compelling physical or empirical evidence, is a certain, religious, view of God!

This may sound strange at first, as it did to me, but his point is quite sound. Predating Darwin, ideas as to what God would or would not, or should or should not, do in creating the world are prevalent. The natural theologians presumed that God would only create a "perfect" world that was so obviously fine-tuned that anyone would know it simply by observation. The world, however, is full of seeming problems and errors. Their conclusion was that God didn't create it, at least not directly. This conveniently paved the way for Darwinism to take the intellectual world by storm.

Rather than focusing on history, Hunter points out the current modern reliance upon the same notion. He brings up the profoundly simple question: given the data we have about biology, why do we presuppose evolution? The general answer given by science is that evolution predicts that things should be this way and creationism would predict something different. Of course, one could ask: why?

You would have to read his article to gather the full force of his evidence, scenarios, and arguments.

On the issue of this world, and whether or not God would create it this way, I say that yes He would and did. What is imperfect or dysteleological about nature? Vestigial organs? Homology? I don't see any reason why God couldn't create things just this way. Only by assuming, and presuming, to know everything about God's actions and purposes could we assess whether or not He would do something one way or another.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Why I Am Not A Darwinist

Author: James Barham, Independent & Published Scholar

This article is a farily quick read and, at times, seems to summarize a large amount of the content from the other authors in this collection. Barham's main point of discussion is the "normative" or emergent purpose inherent in both living beings and living matter. He tells briefly of his own upbringing; how he lost his traditional southern baptist faith in favor of metaphysical darwinism and how he lost this latter faith in favor of new system acknowledging purpose and teleology as inherent properties of the organic world.

He makes some very poignant and trenchant observations into metaphysical darwinism. The most satisfying for me was his stunningly effective, though surprisingly simple, demonstration of darwinism's religious and faith-requiring nature.

As for his theories into a purposeful universe, he explains in some detail how simple observations into the behavior of organisms demonstrates a degree of purpose inexplicable by natural selection. He continues by illustrating the nature of purpose in all living matter and why metaphysical darwinism can not make sense of it.

I have treated his work briefly only because his arguments are so well articulated that they are easy to summarize. This is a great article, especially in terms of metaphysical insight and clear argumentation.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Three Wise Men: Scientists Plan to Rebuild Neanderthal Genome

The TWM posted this in reference to this article, but I am more concerned with what the TWM themselves have to say. I focus on them not because I value their opinion on the matter but because it is a good indication of what the modern, liberal, naturalistic, evolutionist thinks about the issue.

Here is what Nat-Wu, who has at least some undergraduate education in anthropology, says:
To completely and fully understand the difference between Humans and neanderthals (or to use a more scientific and neutral terminology, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis), we need both [genomes], especially to find out if any interbreeding ever occurred. But this analysis alone should tell us a good bit about exactly how similar neanderthals were to sapiens. There are several important questions we don't have the answers to yet, like their brain size and whether they were capable of speech yet. Actually, we know next to nothing about their cognitive abilities, although we think that they had similar sensory capabilities to ours. They did have bigger noses, mouths, and eyes, so it's possible they had more brainpower dedicated to those areas. However, their material culture remained at a primitive state for their entire existence, whereas sapiens quickly surpassed them in technological advancement. But their brain case was actually larger, so it's all up in the air.

Theoretically, at some day in the future, a complete DNA reconstruction would enable us to create a cloned neanderthal so that we could get these answers definitively. That's a moral and ethical nightmare, so I'm not even going to think about that. As to what we hope to learn from just the sequencing alone, finding out whether they had language is the big one.
Even a cursory read of Lubenow's Bones of Contention, especially the second edition which focuses much more intensely on H. neanderthalensis, points out the excessive bias, misinformation, dishonesty, and false claims that most of Nat-Wu's statment is based on. The evidence at hand does nothing to discredit the full humanity of the Neanderthals. There exists no evidence to indicate that their culture and lifestyle were anything less than fully human. As for speech, they surely had it. Skeletal anatomy indicates that they should have the same ability as anyone else. Nothing except racism and seething bias, all stemming from a desperate attempt to hold on to the "Out of Africa" theory of human evolution, would convince someone otherwise. I direct you to Lubenow's book for thorough, positive, and abundant evidence of Neanderthals' full humanity. He effectively calls into question anyone who interprets the available evidence as indicating that Neanderthal is an inferior separate species. Lubenow isn't so pretentious as to claim that he can conclusively prove anything about the past (unlike evolutionists), after all the past inevitably involves speculation. But he shows beyond the shadow of any doubt that the evidence at hand favors the full humanity of Neanderthals rather than their exclusion as some separate and illegitimate sub-species.

In fact, the Sima de los Huesos Cave material from Spain showed so conclusively that no legitimate distinction exists between the Eurpoean H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens fossils that even evolutionists had to abandon the idea and they subsequently reclassified the European hominid fossil material. The only "Neanderthals" that remain are from other continents. Of course, even there the distinctions are false but they still maintain the notion while they can.

Even more signifant to this article is the aspect of DNA comparisons. Neanderthal mtDNA has already been studied to a degree. Even though evolutionists loudly claim that they have proven that Neanderthals are a different species than modern man through this method, their claims have no ground on which to stand. Did you know that when they compared Neanderthal mtDNA to modern DNA that they excluded all samples that were "too closely similar"? Why? Because they considered it contamination of the sample. Now how could they know what was contamination and what wasn't? They obviously can't know that, so they threw out the data that supported the notion that Neanderthal was fully human and kept the data that supported the notion that Neandethal was not human. There you have it! They "proved" that Neanderthal is different by the super-scientific method of throwing out the data that doesn't fit.

Of course, this discussion is about nuclear DNA and the mapping of the entire genome. There are some serious problems here. First, if you read my previous post on Denton's research, you will know that DNA comparisons, which are heavily dependent upon the "gene-centric view of life" are hopelessly irrelevant. If that wasn't enough, we encouter the fact that the "Neanderthal" genome has suffered excessive decay given its age. There is absolutely no way to show that the samples are complete, inerrant, or uncontaminated. Third, they are obviously going to throw out every sample that looks like modern man, so we may as well let them blindfold us and tell us that 2 + 2 = 7,453.

"Science", and by that I mean the modern philosophical movement also known as naturalism, has got to learn that the only sphere in which it can dogmatically speak about truth is the present. Physical evidence is completely incapable of objectively reconstructing the past. No one has a problem when science speaks about the present; about physics, chemistry, geography, etc... The only problem is when it decides that it can suddenly reconstruct all of history! Science is supposed to be about observation right? That's what they claim: science is empirical. So start observing the present and quit shoving metaphysical nonsense down the world's throat about the unobservable past. That is not empirical science's domain.

Souls on Ice

Sunday morning, I read this article by Liza Mundy in the Dallas Morning News. The article is about a growing surplus of frozen embryos left over from In Vitro Fertilization treatment. According to the article, there are probably around 500,000 frozen embryos being stored; most of them belong to families who do not know what to do with them.

The amazing thing about this article is that it shows that even people who support abortion and stem cell research can not view their own embryos as mere clumps of cells and tissue. Mundy states:
This embryo glut is forcing many people to reconsider whatever they thought they thought about issues such as life and death and choice and reproductive freedom.
The problem goes something like this. A couple gets IVF treatment to conceive. The clinic where they receive treatment gathers multiple embryos (well over a dozen probably) in order to attempt implantation. After treatment, the remaining embryos are stored in a frozen state. Only the parents can make the call to kill the embryos or to continue storage.

I actually know someone who is going through this exact issue. He confided in me that he and his wife view their frozen embryos as siblings to their born child and they keep putting off a decision on what to do with them. They just keep sending money to keep them frozen. He told me, "every year we get that letter about continuing storage or destroying the embryos. We never talk about it until we get that letter, and each time we put it off for one more year." He told me that his reasons are not religious, but he still doesn't feel right about destroying them.

Most of the couples with these embryos feel the only solution is to donate them to another family.
As with ultrasound technology - which permits parents to visualize a fetus in utero - IVF allows many patients to form an emotional attachment to a form of human life that is very early, it's true, but still life, and still human. People bond with photos of three-day-old, eight-cell embryos. They ardently wish for them to grow into children. The experience can be transforming.
Dr. Nachtigall, who conducted studies into this issue of what to do with leftover embryos, found:
Parents variously conceptualize frozen embryos as biological tissue, living entities, 'virtual' children have interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological 'insurance policies,' and symbolic reminders of their past infertility.
He notes that many parents think of these embryos as not merely tissue, but also as children.

The difference between a person who willingly aborts their own child(ren) and who intentionally seeks fertility treatment through IVF is obviously the lack or presence of desire to have a child. This issue nicely stradles the usual pro-life and pro-choice camps, however, because people from both sides seek IVF treatment. It is encouraging to me that people, even pro-choice people, have a hard time looking at their own embryos and coldly stating that they're just cells and tissue.

It might be easy for a person to look at a stem cell lab, full of embryos with no apparent siblings, parents, loved ones, or even a future of their own and see nothing wrong with harvesting the cells and tissue in the name of science and health, but it is a completely different issue when the cells become personal.

Clearly the factor on deciding whether or not an embryo is a living person or not does not rest solely on feelings of attachment, but those feelings are a step in the right direction and parental love and attachment is surely part of the equation. It is clear that an embryo, given implantation and a normal pregnancy, will be born as a living human person. Parents can bond with this baby, this living person, from the moment of conception and this issue just further demonstrates that. A single cell is no less alive than an adult human, it is simply earlier in development.

We don't consider infants any less alive than adults, even premature infants. Infants have a lot of developing to do, however, and many of their ogans are immature and they can not survive on their own. The line is so blurry that I say it doesn't exist. A human is a human, one cell or many cells. The only reason our society kicks and screams in admitting that is complete detachment from the reality of the situation and the disgusting desire for the right to slaughter children that we don't want or would rather harvest to cure other living humans.

Friday, July 21, 2006

An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey: Biological Order as an Inherent Property of Matter

Author: Michael John Denton, Senior Research Fellow in Human Genetics - University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

This is probably my favorite article in the entire collection, at least one of my top three. Denton recounts his "fundamentalist" childhood (although his definition of fundamentalist is fairly loose considering he did not believe in a literal six-day creation), his loss of faith during medical school, and his new synthesis later in life using his concept of self-organizing matter. This biographical content only serves to introduce the concepts that impacted his thinking during those life periods.

Denton lost his "fundamentalism" when he encountered "homology" in the anatomy of living creatures. Homology, as he defines it, is the similar fundamental structures shared by many different living creatures regardless of their purpose. The pentadactyl limb is his prime example. A whale, a human, a bat, and a mole can all use the same homologous pentadactyl limb for very different purposes. He states that this knowledge led him forcibly to the conclusion that these creatures must have descended from some distant common ancestor.

As he later explains more fully, such a conclusion wasn't made with all of the data available. Most importantly for him, he later discovered that his "mechanistic" view of nature was unfounded and off base. To view nature and its creatures as contingent beings specifically formed (either created or evolved) for some specific form and function is "mechanistic" in his view. Ironically, this is the view held by both Darwinists and Creationists of most stripes.

What is the alternative, however? If creatures are not either specially created as they are for some specific role in the animal kingdom, or have not evolved to that point for that specific role through millions of years of natural selection and mutation what else could explain their form and existence? Denton reponds: biological order as an inherent property of matter. In other words, matter is intrinsically capable and empowered to self-organize into specific forms just as electrons, protons, and neutrons are intrinsically capable and empowered to self-organize into atoms and molecules.

In addition to this, and perhaps the most shocking and revolutionary aspect of this article, Denton demonstrates that genes do not do the "forming" of living things!
"...the entire mechanistic conception of life...is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic order is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980's it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the '80s and '90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life's order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype...It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it...genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.

...If the genes do not contain sufficient information to specify organic forms, then only nature can supply the necessary "missing information."...much biological order is lawful and self organizing and "extra-genic."

Over the past decade it has become increasingly obvious that the main role of the genes is to provide the unique material constituents that self-organize, under the direction of natural law, into the basic forms of the organic world."
I like to compare this to the creation and customization of a car. Imagine ordering a brand new BMW from the factory. Imagine, also, that before ordering this car you are given a massive multiple-choice quesionaire detailing every customizable part of the car, and your particular choice in the matter. You turn the questionaire in, the factory creates the car using your specifications, and you then receive your new car.

In this example, the customizable parts (practically every part of the car) can be considered the "genes" of a biological organism. The factory is "nature" in Denton's view but could also be considered God. Notice how the "genes", or parts of the car, essentially form the building blocks of the vehicle but they do not create the car. The factory must create it and it must possess a pre-existing knowledge of how to assemble the parts, in what order, and with what tools. Do you see how this changes the view of things? DNA, or genes, does not create or perpetuate life; an intelligent force (nature/God) does that using the customizable parts specififed by the genes. Not only this but there are certain aspects of organisms that are not specified by genes and thus are obviously not determined by them.

You will have to read Denton's article to learn more and I strongly recommend that you do. I do not agree with everything Denton says, but his insights into the failure of the "gene-centric view of life" are very exciting to me. This could invalidate nearly every evolutionist claim based on genetic comparisons (although they are already frought with dishonesty, bias, and logical fallacies).

For a scientist to claim that a chimpanzee or a neanderthal has x% genetic similiarity or difference with modern H. sapiens is an exercise in irrelevance. Noticing that a BMW has certain tires, glass shapes, motor style, etc... and that a Lexus has a different, though relatively analagous, set of features says nothing about their descent (factory) or species (model). You could have two BMW's with a nearly opposite set of characteristics that are still both the same make and model, and you could have a BMW and Lexus with features so similar that they seem like the same make and model. However, their relationships can obviously not be determined this way!

This is very exciting material; groundbreaking and revolutionary!

National Academy of Sciences Publication

For those of you who don't know this, I work at a public library. In this position, a lot of books, especially new acquisitions, come across my desk on a regular basis. Today there is a book here titled Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences [Second Edition]. I flipped through it and can't help but post about it. In fact, it is so blatantly deceptive that I feel the need to write a more official paper analyzing it. I might do that, but first some lighter comments.

From the back of the book, there are two leaflets to distribute to people (probably educators) who might want to purchase this book. Before I go on, I should state that this book is obviously a response to the Intelligent Design movement and is designed to convince educators to keep "Creationism" out of the public classroom. Read what these leaflets say:
Science and Creationsism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Ed.

While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve. Yet the teaching of evolution to schoolchildren is still contentious.

In Science and Creationism, The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level. Briefly and clearly, this booklet explores the nature of science, reviews the evidence for the origin of the universe and Earth, and explains the current scientific understanding of biological evolution. This edition includes new insights from astronomy and molecular biology.

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

Today many school students are shielded from one of the most important concepts in modern science: evolution. In engaging and conversational style, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science provides a well-strutured framework for understanding and teaching evolution. Written for teachers, parents, and community officials as well as scientists and educators, this book describes how evolution reveals both the great diversity and similarity among Earth's organisms; it explores how scientists approach the question of evolution; and it illustrates the nature of science as a way of knowing about the natural world. In addition, the book provides answers to frequently asked questions to help readers undestand many of the issues and misconceptions about evolution.
I can hardly imagine a more worthless endeavor than the book sitting before me now. In addition to this, our federal tax dollars pay for this nonsense! Right on the back of this book it states: "The National Academy Press publishes the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States." I thought we were supposed to keep dogmatic ideological worldviews from public education and public money; oh wait! that only applies to anything Christian.

You know, I really need to compose an official analysis and refutation of this nonsense. Maybe I'll make it a work in progress as I continue with my reading list. On that note, I have acquired Icons of Evolution, Darwin's Black Box, and Darwin on Trial. It has taken me a while to review Uncommon Dissent but I'll move on to new material soon.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism

Author: Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry - Lehigh University

In this article, Michael Behe discusses the options available to a Catholic on the theory of evolution. Although this article does mention religion consistently, it does not ever state that being a Catholic is a reason to disbelieve evolution. He rather states that being a Catholic puts one at odds with random, unguided, nonteleological evolution or any sort of Godless universe.

Behe, of course, mentions his own epic work, Darwin's Black Box, and briefly summarizes its content on irreducibly complex biochemical systems. He points out that the mechanism of evolution is the point of contention for a Catholic; not necessarily evolution itself.

He also discusses three divergent views on evolution, all from Catholic scientists. His own view is that God, as the Intelligent Designer, guides and designs life. The two other views are that 1.) God designed the universe with physical laws which naturally, without divine interference, guide evolution and 2.) God wove information into the fabric of space and time which gives a degree of self-organization to the material world and hence allows for evolution. He again points out that these three views can agree that God created the universe and life and still not agree on how that precisely occurred.

One of my favorite points in this article is his statement that faith actually provides a better platform for open scientific inquiry than materialistic scientism:
"Indeed, the range of possibilities that are available under a Catholic viewpoint is much wider than under a materialistic viewpoint. Materialism virtually requires something such as Darwinism to be true, and it is difficult (although not impossible) to reconcile with Haught's views or my own. Thus a Catholic is free to follow the evidence of nature wherever he or she thinks it leads, without the requirement to shoehorn all of biology into the narrow range of options permitted by naturalism."
He does temper this optimism with a section detailing both the dangers and evils of scientism, the notion that only the positive sciences can make any statements regarding objective truth.

I should state that although Behe may well be right that Catholics have no real qualms with evolution per se; I do. I not only reject Darwinian evolution; I reject evolution altogether. That being said, Behe's discussion of why irreducibly complex systems empirically establish the existence and work of a designer is great work.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

Author: Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics - Tulane University in New Orleans

This article is straightforward; simple to understand yet powerful in its message. Examining the peer-review process for academic journals, he points out that, rather than simply weeding out bogus articles, they serve much more effectively to stunt the advance of knowledge and enforce conformity to accepted theories.

He shows that a staggeringly large number of nobel prize winners all had several rejected articles from the peer-review process, even though their ideas were later given widespread credit and acceptance.

This article is valuable as an indication of the serious problems in the peer-review process. This, of course, is valid for any discipline and the many branches of science that conform to some form of Darwinism are no exception. Not only does the scientific establishment defend Darwinism far beyond empirical justification, the peer-review process guarantees that any other opinions or criticisms will not be given a fair hearing or publication. Science is as far from being objective as can be imagined.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Analysis: Evolutionary Ethics in Practice

I recently had the chance to put Budziszewski's masterful thesis into practice. Coincidentally, and serendipitously, I came across a post on a different blog in which an individual monikered Nat-Wu expounded his ethical system. It just so happened that he was expounding the very thing Budziszewski discusses: Evolutionary Ethics. It was a very interesting conversation I had with him, because it shows just how this system of ethics works in practice. You can read the actual full discussion by clicking the title of this post.

Nat-Wu originally posted an exposition on the right to freedom. He speaks of it as an inalienable right due to every human. Such things as murder, recklessness, and coerced religious indoctrination are bad in his value system; not because they are wrong or evil, but because they limit and reduce personal freedom. In fact, as I learned from his response to my comment, he completely denies that such concepts as good and bad or right and wrong even exist except in the context of freedom and desires.

Budziszewski states that a utilitarian value system makes the following logical assertions:
1.) The Right is nothing but what brings about the Good
2.) The Good is nothing but the Desirable
3.) The Desirable is nothing but what we actually desire
4.) What we actually desire is individually relative
You'll notice that a system like Nat-Wu espouses is right in step with this world view. In the case of this particular argument of his, The Right is the Good, the Good is the Desirable, the Desirable is what humans actually desire, and what humans actually desire is freedom. Therefore it is "wrong" to limit or damage someone's freedom because it violates what they want and therefore what is "right" for them.

This view may be attractive to many since it is seductively simple and extravagantly emancipatory. When analyzed below the surface, however, everything breaks down rather quickly.

His first problem is that although he can establish that freedom is desirable, thus it is good, thus it is "right", he is completely unable to tell you why this is so. Do humans value freedom? Yes. Why? Desires are the lowest common denominator in utilitarian ethics. To explain the desires themselves from a system built upon them is circular. Likewise, he is completely unable to explain why freedom which is desirable to him, thus good for him, and therefore right for him has anything to do with anyone else. Since everyone else's value systems are different based on what they desire, which even if it is freedom could be defined in countless ways, they have no reason to listen to what he says about what is "right" and "wrong".

He tries to deflect such criticism by stating that physical rights, like life and movement, are fundamental and "objective". Again, why? He has defeated himself by admitting that values are relative to individuals. A person who did not recognize such rights is just as correct as a different person who does recognize them. There is no method of differentiating between divergent, or even contradictory, views. Everyone is right!

Nat-Wu's post was not on ethics in general, however; it was about government and public policy. He is not simply stating that ethics are relative, although he does state that; he is stating that the government should build its policies on the ideal that individual freedom is supreme. He believes that such policy satisfies the motto that "everyone is right" because it lets everyone be right in their own unique ways.

Again, this sounds simple enough except that he builds his entire system on an unfounded assumption. Why is freedom good? Why is freedom right? How does he know that enough of the population actually desires it in order for it to be functional governmental policy? Who is he to say that freedom is the ideal when his values are only valid for him individually? In his value system it is not only foolish to speak for others, it is impossible!

This brings me to the most paradoxical statement in his entire discussion: minorities. He states that it is important for minorities to be considered in public policy. While it is true that his system values individual rights as the highest form of truth that exists, it does not follow that minorities matter at all. The only way for minorities to matter would be if the majority of people desired for them to matter, hence the majority could legislate such things. But this proves the opposite of what he wants, only the view of the majority matters! Only the majority can recognize or respect them, and hence only the majority's desires actually count for anything.

In fact, since he boldly denies any overarching objective truth of any kind, and considers such systems of thought as oppressive, he again defeats his own argument. It necessarily follows from his utilitarianism that no objective value system exist, and he acknowledges that. What he doesn't understand is that this denies him the right to claim that he holds any external truth of any kind. The only truth that exists for him is internal, to move it into the external world is to oppress. It therefore becomes impossible to establish a system of values to regulate even two people, much less a nation.

I challenged him with a question:
If you do appeal to objective morality, then why should we listen to you since you claim that to enforce such a system is oppressive? If you don't appeal to objective morality, then why should we listen to you since our values and desires are relatively more important than yours?
His only response was to claim that my two systems of thought were self-contradictory. He inadvertently made my point for me. I wasn't explaining systems of thought that I considered true, I listed the only systems of thought that could follow from his utilitarian ethics! He didn't choose an option, of course, and I don't think he realized that by admitting that his only two options, given his value system, were both self-defeating that he defeated his own argument once again.

Evolutionary ethics, in this case naturalistic utilitarianism, denies the existence of truth altogether. It therefore defeats itself from the outset by loudly declaring that even it, as a system of thought, is certainly not "true" unless you want it to be personally.

If there is objective truth, as I certainly believe, then such truth is not only true for everyone but desires are irrelevant in the face of that truth. Instead of basing truth on what people want, we should base truth on what is right. People do not always want the right things, even a utilitarian would have to admit that at some point. The only way to fairly govern is to govern based on what is right, and the only way for "right" to even exist is if a higher power, an objective and overarching system of absolute truth, makes it so. Therefore what is right is always right, regardless of who is in question or what they desire.

Murder is wrong because God's truth declares that it is wrong. Even if I desire to murder someone, it is still wrong. Such truth transcends individuals and even cultures. Likewise, freedom is only right if God's truth makes it right, even if everyone desires it.

Utilitarianism is only a circuitous exercise in arbitrary arbitration pitting one individual's desires against another's indefinitely. The most ironic part of such a system is that each time it succeeds it also fails, granting someone their desire by denying someone else. Everyone is right and everyone is also wrong. I can hardly think of a more pitiful and groundless criteria for truth.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Accept No Imitations: The Rivalry of Naturalism and Natural Law

Author: J. Budziszewski, Professor of Government and Philosophy - U.T. Austin

This is the best treatise I have ever encountered that dashes evolutionary ethics against the rocks. As the title suggests, Budziszewski juxtaposes naturalism and natural law and indicates their mutual exclusivity. Not only are they mutually exclusive, however, but naturalistic ethics is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing solid on which to ground any judgment of value or rightness when everything is relative.

Budziszewski divides the evolutionary ethics camp into three teams: those that ground ethics in adaptational mutations or genes, those that ground ethics in utilitarianism, and those that attempt to mix naturalism and natural law. You'll have to read the article to catch the force of his arguments, but all three are hopelessly pointless, especially the third group. The first two are simply groundless in that they ground ethics in the non-ethical, and pull the rug from under themselves by making even their own judgments relative. The third is a glaring paradoxical contradiction and defeats itself from the outset.

This is a highly recommended article.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Teaching the Flaws in Neo-Darwinism

Author: Edward Sisson, partner at Washington D.C.-based international law firm

This article does two things: 1.) It examines the lack of evidence for naturalistic evolution (which Sisson terms unintelligent evolution to contrast it with intelligent design or guided evolution), and 2.) It examines the style of argument from the unintelligent evolution camp and points out some serious deficiencies.

Toward the first point, Sisson compares unintelligent evolution with the now discredited theory of isthmian land bridges. Both theories served to provide an explanation of the world (or part of the world) without invoking supernatural causes or interaction. Both have a complete lack of empirical evidence other than the world or nature itself. Both are unsuccessful, though persistent, in locating self-validating evidence and yet both persist(ed) as "factual" theories. Both are also unnecessary except for dogmatic adherence to an underlying phiolosophical belief system. The isthmian land bridge theory was replaced (and against) the theory of continental drift just as unintelligent evolution is against (though not yet replaced by) intelligent design. Both are completely resistant to any form of change (regardless of any and all evidence) without an acceptable replacement theory which still upholds the underlying philosophical belief system.

Toward the second point, Sisson points out the arguments and thought processes used to justify and propogate unintelligent evolution. He makes multiple piercing observations. The most important one is this: The scientific establishment refuses to admit ignorance of a topic when it already has a theory of any kind that explains it (even if that explanation is notably incorrect or incomplete). Even if the theory is shown inadequate or unfounded, the establishment can not let it go until it has a new theory it can use in its place. This is quite different from the assumption that science is unbiased free inquiry into the natural order of things and will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Another way to state this is that science rejects out of court purely negative arguments. It refuses to give up any claims, rather it will only trade one theory for another.

Sisson also gives an enlightening discussion of how a scientist must think and the arguments he must employ to promote or establish his career.

This article is lively and informative, well worth the time.